Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Who is the G.O.A.T at their absolute peak?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Magic Johnson

    5 45.45%
  • Dwyane Wade

    2 18.18%
  • Kobe Bryant

    1 9.09%
  • Tim Duncan

    3 27.27%
  • Kevin Garnett

    0 0%
  • Stephen Curry

    0 0%
  • Kevin Durant

    0 0%
  • Moses Malone

    0 0%
  • Bill Russell

    0 0%
  • Julius Erving

    0 0%
  • Bill Walton

    0 0%
  • Oscar Robertson

    0 0%
  • Elgin Baylor

    0 0%
  • Jerry West

    0 0%
  • Charles Barkley

    0 0%
  • Dirk Nowitzki

    0 0%
  • Karl Malone

    0 0%
  • David Robinson

    0 0%
  • James Harden

    0 0%
  • Giannis Antetokounmpo

    0 0%
  • Isiah Thomas

    0 0%
  • Kawhi Leonard

    0 0%
  • Scottie Pippen

    0 0%
  • Rick Barry

    0 0%
  • John Havlicek

    0 0%
  • Tracy McGrady

    0 0%
  • Allen Iverson

    0 0%
  • Steve Nash

    0 0%
  • Chris Paul

    0 0%
  • John Stockton

    0 0%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    cashed in on the hype lmfaolol. they advanced the game and created their positions.
    He is a Luddite.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,682
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Well, he's a member here, he can state his argument. I don't know where to look for him. and honestly, if I want to have a chat with someone in the NBA in data analytics, I have a big enough list of people to call.

    Ironically, I personally know two NBA owners, I am on good terms with several players and coaching staff members, but someone who works as a data analyst is going to laugh at what I know about how NBA organizations work just because some people think that they've become basketball experts by reading Hollinger and a couple of other guys that have cashed in on the hype. No disrpespect to them, they have added a different perspective, but it's no holy grail.

    Their main purpose is to make the most of your role players and you can also scout opposition tactics in a way. Anyone expecting that they'll tell you which one is better overall is just naive. They can only tell you which player is better for a particular scheme or offensive/defensive flow.

    So what it simply comes down to is you simply having no clue of what this thing really is and why organizations value it. It certainly won't help you answer a question such as Kobe vs Lebron or Bird vs Durant. Or even with contemporaries. When you stop using it for those kind of questions, I'll stop telling you what you're doing is ridiculous.
    As I suspected, you are just ignorant of what stats tell us. Like I said, you are either all or nothing. You say that it can't help us answer questions such as Kobe or LeBron, but it's not about having them answer the question. It can't answer Kobe or LeBron, but it can certainly help someone answer those questions.

    There is no stat that can irrefutably say "LeBron > Nique". But when you take all the advanced statistics that measure impact, passing, shooting, driving, defense, shot creation, tendencies, etc. you can start to see who is better at which skills, and then make a personal determination that one of them is better than the other based on the totality of their skill-set.

    We are not looking at statistics to tell us our opinions. We are looking at statistics to help formulate our opinions. Your opinions are not backed by anything but themselves. You have no supporting evidence for your opinion, it is entirely constructed by itself.

    It's why you want to dismiss statistics entirely because they can't answer the question in its entirety. Because you want to be able to argue from a point where the only thing we can use are our opinions, and not facts. Otherwise, anyone speaking with you would quickly realize your opinions are not based on anything real other than the opinion itself.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,848
    First of, my opinion is not just backed by itself. If you bothered you'd notice that. Just because I gave up on responding properly since no one seems to understand basketball doesn't mean anything.

    Second, you are under the impression that your opinion has more substance just because you pick a few cells off the spreadsheet each time to gloss it with. The polish you're using isn't that great man, it won't make a bad opinion into a legitimate one just because you found a couple of numbers that you think warrant that opinion to be valued more. In most cases someone else can come up with a different set of numbers that refute what you say.

    Reggie Miller having a 1/9 3PT game doesn't mean is a worse shooter than Kobe who may have had 2/5. Reggie Miller still is the better shooter even if the stats say otherwise. But you would stubbornly argue against this just because you have "the numbers that prove it". You (pl) keep doing this all the time with all kind of arguments, under any context. It is tiresome to argue against such simplicity and naivety, hence why I cannot keep discussing basketball properly here.
    There is no basketball talk here. There is talk about the game's players, but actual basketball talk is very limited.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,774
    you've provided zero basketball talk and zero about a player's game. just hilarious takes that even people from ur golden era admit arent true. about the only thing I agree with you on is ur take on the irrelevance of popular opinion, the ad populace fallacy that Kobe fans cling to
    Last edited by Chronz; 07-15-2020 at 07:51 PM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,682
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    First of, my opinion is not just backed by itself. If you bothered you'd notice that. Just because I gave up on responding properly since no one seems to understand basketball doesn't mean anything.

    Second, you are under the impression that your opinion has more substance just because you pick a few cells off the spreadsheet each time to gloss it with. The polish you're using isn't that great man, it won't make a bad opinion into a legitimate one just because you found a couple of numbers that you think warrant that opinion to be valued more. In most cases someone else can come up with a different set of numbers that refute what you say.

    Reggie Miller having a 1/9 3PT game doesn't mean is a worse shooter than Kobe who may have had 2/5. Reggie Miller still is the better shooter even if the stats say otherwise. But you would stubbornly argue against this just because you have "the numbers that prove it". You (pl) keep doing this all the time with all kind of arguments, under any context. It is tiresome to argue against such simplicity and naivety, hence why I cannot keep discussing basketball properly here.
    There is no basketball talk here. There is talk about the game's players, but actual basketball talk is very limited.
    First Bolded: I'm asking a serious question: what besides your own opinion do you use? What else supports your opinions besides your own eyes?

    Second Bolded: Like I said, I think your aversion to stats comes down to your inability to comprehend what they can tell us. In essence, because you are ignorant of stats, you assume everyone else is. Nobody who uses stats would take a single games shooting to justify a player being a better shooter than another. The fact you think they would shows how completely out of touch with statistics you are (which makes your assertions that you use analytics laughable. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what specific complex numbers and analytics you use BTW).

    But if you took a player's shooting stats for their entire career, that encompassed thousands of shots. If you took those shooting stats and broke them down by area of the floor, if you broke them down by how open they were or how guarded they were, whether they were an assisted 3 or off the dribble, etc. and one guy consistently shot better than another (such as Reggie shooting better from 3 over his career), that would be pretty good evidence that Reggie is a better shooter from 3.

    In fact, the more one looks at your example of the flaw in statistics the more laughable it becomes. Every statistical measure in a way that someone would use shows Reggie is a better shooter than Kobe. So in this instance, the statistics can tell us specifics about a widely accepted truth: that Reggie is a better shooter than Kobe.

    So were I only to use statistics to say Reggie is a better shooter than Kobe, would you agree? Would you say statistics can't help us figure out who was the better shooter despite the fact statistics does indeed reflect that Reggie was the better shooter?

    If someone came up to you and said "we cannot use statistics in this discussion" and then said Kobe was a better shooter than Reggie, how would you refute them? Would they be entitled to their opinion and would it be just as valid as yours?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    you've provided zero basketball talk and zero about a player's game. just hilarious takes that even people from ur golden era admit arent true. about the only thing I agree with you on is ur take on the irrelevance of popular opinion, the ad populace fallacy that Kobe fans cling to
    Here? Of course. It was not my intention. Maybe if you started to pay attention you wouldn't ask someone to repeat themselves two thousand times in order to get the idea of what they are saying.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,848
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First Bolded: I'm asking a serious question: what besides your own opinion do you use? What else supports your opinions besides your own eyes?

    Second Bolded: Like I said, I think your aversion to stats comes down to your inability to comprehend what they can tell us. In essence, because you are ignorant of stats, you assume everyone else is. Nobody who uses stats would take a single games shooting to justify a player being a better shooter than another. The fact you think they would shows how completely out of touch with statistics you are (which makes your assertions that you use analytics laughable. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what specific complex numbers and analytics you use BTW).

    But if you took a player's shooting stats for their entire career, that encompassed thousands of shots. If you took those shooting stats and broke them down by area of the floor, if you broke them down by how open they were or how guarded they were, whether they were an assisted 3 or off the dribble, etc. and one guy consistently shot better than another (such as Reggie shooting better from 3 over his career), that would be pretty good evidence that Reggie is a better shooter from 3.

    In fact, the more one looks at your example of the flaw in statistics the more laughable it becomes. Every statistical measure in a way that someone would use shows Reggie is a better shooter than Kobe. So in this instance, the statistics can tell us specifics about a widely accepted truth: that Reggie is a better shooter than Kobe.

    So were I only to use statistics to say Reggie is a better shooter than Kobe, would you agree? Would you say statistics can't help us figure out who was the better shooter despite the fact statistics does indeed reflect that Reggie was the better shooter?

    If someone came up to you and said "we cannot use statistics in this discussion" and then said Kobe was a better shooter than Reggie, how would you refute them? Would they be entitled to their opinion and would it be just as valid as yours?
    My example was not a real example and it was just a poke on how simplistic the view of the so called stats brigade on PSD behaves.

    I am done picking apart flawed arguments in these posts, I'm just showing in a simplified way, which is the favorite of this kind of posters, how naive and wrong their argument is. All you have done is basically agreed on that premise.

    Maybe now you can extrapolate that and find what I see as flawed everytime you pick up a stat line of two players and make long *** posts over virtually no substance, claiming that you have found the answer.

    If someone told me that Kobe was a better shooter than Reggie, I wouldn't do much more than initially ask them what makes them have that view. If they could explain their reasoning, then perhaps we'd engage in a dialogue. If the argument is "I saw Reggie choke but Kobe drained a winning three", then we cannot really have a discussion.

    Now what we have is "arguments" of people with zero knowledge and very limited footage of players they talk about and then they bring up a bunch of newly made up metrics to say that their view holds water. Sorry, but if you're buying into that rhetoric, then you have no business talking about basketball, especially comparing older generations with today. And you have championed this kind of rhetoric in here, despite having at least some knowledge of the older NBA, albeit flawed as you are some kind of believer that 80s basketball was soft and you don't get that the modern game is basically a carbon copy of the early ABA.

    P.S. For some reason you are under the impression that I do not want to ever use statistics, which is yet another ridiculous assertion of yours just because you cannot keep up with real basketball talk and think that anyone that laughs off the "advanced stats" brigade has some anti-stats agenda. Sure, I use them. But only in their intended nature.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,682
    ^ If you use stats then why canít you answer my question. I asked you what stats specifically you use and you have yet to answer.

    And saying your piss poor example was a poke at how the PSD stat brigade behaves when no one who uses stats would behave that way is pretty bad. Your entire post was trying to walk back your terrible example and to distance yourself from the substance of it because itís laughably stupid.

    Itís the kind of simplistic view someone who knows nothing about statistics would think someone who uses statistics would say. In essence, your example shows how ignorant you are of statistics that you think anyone who uses them would use them that way.

    By accusing us of ignorance, youíve only highlighted your own.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    46,774
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Here? Of course. It was not my intention. Maybe if you started to pay attention you wouldn't ask someone to repeat themselves two thousand times in order to get the idea of what they are saying.
    ive paid attention. u repeat the same **** regardless of what's said.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    112,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    ive paid attention. u repeat the same **** regardless of what's said.
    its him in every lebron thread honestly... its hilarious.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •